What's your point?

validation of expertise I guess....?

More than likely since he is a "window expert", but just thought I would check, lol...............

I am a bird expert.

Where to begin....

To start with your premise is flawed. You are making the assumption that the windows are intended to protect occupants when the actual purpose is to protect the integrity of the home. A home built to current specifications, including "deficient" windows, will protect the occupants if they choose to stay but ultimately the best place to be in the case of a Cat 5 hurricane is....elsewhere.

"Well they do not allow these windows to be installed in other countries. Deficient hurricane testing standards in the United States ready to change?"

Who is "they" and what countries specifically? And who determines "deficient"?

"For example, if the US was held to Australia’s testing standards, most of South Florida, along the coast, would be in a wind zone that required at 74 mph impact test for products approved for sale."

You are talking about Australia's AS1170 I assume, and it is a tough standard, no doubt about it. It is so tough that (last time I checked) there were NO third party testing facilities that actually certify that code - NONE. So they have the world's toughest hurricane code in place, but no one to certify it.

"Currently, the Miami-Dade testing requirement for a large missile impact, is tested at a velocity of only 35 mph."

Actually it's 34 mph.

"But the problem with that relatively low large missile velocity test, is it allows a major hurricane to significantly damage a person or their home."

Huh? How's that work exactly? You are aware that it's a two-part test, right? And the impact is the EASY part of the test. The pressure-cycle portion is MUCH harder to pass and you don't even mention it.

"If wind is blowing or gusting to 150 mph, some objects would certainly be carried at a rate of velocity of half that wind speed, especially objects located near ground level."

"certainly" ? I assume that you have engineering and/or test data to back up that assertion on your part?

"The vast majority of U.S. approved products are not sold in countries like Australia, as they cannot meet these higher standards for approval of use."

Really? Which products specifically? I assume you have data to back up that assertion as well?

"Attempts have been made to raise the U.S. testing standards, but these attempts have been blocked, primarily by hurricane glass manufacturers, their distributors, or people they do business with. This group, associated with hurricane impact glass, comprises 7 of 14 votes for the International Hurricane Protection Association or the IHPA. The IHPA governing body does not direct changes to building code, but certainly can discourage or discredit change, and have done so multiple times in the past."

Which hurricane glass manufacturers would that be? Curiously if you look at a current membership list of the IHPA there is a grand total of ZERO glass manufacturers listed - none, nada, zippo.

In fact, there is only ONE window manufacturer listed in total - and technically they could be considered as a "hurricane glass manufacturer" since they do laminate glass, however I didn't see a single other laminator on the list of members.

Virtually all other members that I noticed are either government or contractors. And it doesn't seem to be very international, unless Florida is "international" (well I guess it kinda is, but not as meant in the association title).

"The IHPA governing body does not direct changes to building code, but certainly can discourage or discredit change, and have done so multiple times in the past."

So exactly what changes have they "discredited" multiple times?

I look forward to your reply.

Have a good day!

Evidently WoW it may look like a pigeon but in reality it is just an ordinary bird.............

Oberon...off the top rope.

Off the Top Rope!!!!

My point is that thousands of
people have paid millions of dollars for a defective product, a product that is
going to fail when they need it m

oberon your comments and questions
in response to my posting appear intended to avoid the actual problem. From them I would deduce that
you are a salesman who has just enough knowledge to fool prospective clients
into buying an ineffective product, but lacks any indepth knowledge of the
entire situation. Do some research and then come back and tell me that I am
wrong.

Hurricane
resistant glass, constructed of a single glass panel, regularly fails on impact
tests over 50 mph, and almost always when the impact is at 75 mph or half the
wind velocity of a Category IV hurricane.

Much of this
single pane impact resistant glass, failed during Hurricane Wilma in 2005, and
Wilma was not a major hurricane. The hurricane glass manufacturers are also
afforded dubious help during the testing process. These companies are allowed
to leave additional calking all around the glass, where it is held in the
frame. This extra calk aids in passing the impact test, and the follow up test,
which is called the cyclical static pressure load test, where a simulated wind
load is placed on the product being tested.

The testing
standards in the U.S. also allow for products to pass a test a single time for
approval. It is not uncommon for a hurricane window manufacturer to send 10
windows of identical size and simply test each on until 1 of the 10 window passes
the test. Basically under U.S. testing standards their products can fail
9 out of 10 times during testing, and be approved for sale to the public.

Explain how this obvious travesty is allowed to continue?

apparently window expert lives under a rock with regard to any discussion of windows or glazing across the web and oberon's level of expertise

Oberon's name doesn't have expert before or after it so...checkmate for window expert.

okay then....

Nope, not a salesman, I don't sell a thing.

I actually like "rants" like yours because they can be fun to reply too. In your case it's fun and challenging because there is just so much that is simply wrong. Not misunderstanding or misinformation of the details; nope, just wrong.

"The testing standards in the U.S. also allow for products to pass a test a single time for approval. It is not uncommon for a hurricane window manufacturer to send 10 windows of identical size and simply test each on until 1 of the 10 window passes the test. Basically under U.S. testing standards their products can fail 9 out of 10 times during testing, and be approved for sale to the public."

Okay, did you just make this one up for your post, come on be honest, you really did just make this one up hoping no one would notice, right?

If you didn't make it up then where in the world did you ever find it? Seriously, I have never heard this one before, even from the most adamant anti-impact window advocates that I have chatted with, and I have met some serious anti-impact window folks in the past; typically shutter sales-folk in most cases of course.

In reality, testing does allow for one unit in four to fail the testing and still pass the overall. Now if you want to argue the validity of a 75% pass rate, that would be a valid discussion, but your assertion is ridiculous and has no basis in reality.

"The hurricane glass manufacturers are also afforded dubious help during the testing process. These companies are allowed to leave additional calking all around the glass, where it is held in the frame. This extra calk aids in passing the impact test, and the follow up test, which is called the cyclical static pressure load test, where a simulated wind load is placed on the product being tested."

Come on, really? Seriously? This would be the most laughable thing that you posted if you hadn't posted the previous statement that I just commented on. I mean seriously?

And btw,

STATIC - lacking in movement, action, or change

CYCLICAL - recurring in a repeated sequence of events

In the impact window world cyclical and static loading are two different performance tests. You might have understood the differences between them if you actually understood the meaning of the terms cyclical and static before you wrote them down.

"Hurricane resistant glass, constructed of a single glass panel, regularly fails on impact tests over 50 mph, and almost always when the impact is at 75 mph or half the wind velocity of a Category IV hurricane."

"Much of this single pane impact resistant glass, failed during Hurricane Wilma in 2005, and Wilma was not a major hurricane. "

Are you talking about single pane tempered glass or monolithic laminated glass (not IG), or do you even know the difference? I don't think you actually do know the difference based on your posts. Do you know the difference between the Miami-Dade County large missile and small missile tests? Have you even heard of the ASTM E1996 test? Not to even mention the different requirements of level A-E missile performance?

Yes, there was massive failure of TEMPERED glass during Wilma and while anti-window folks were all screaming about "baffled experts", the only people who were baffled by the failures were the folks who watered-down the MDCA small missile requirement prior to Wilma. Following Wilma the small missile test requirement was changed back to a realistic level, AND if you want to discuss that specifically, such as why it was changed and why it was inadequate, we can do so at your convenience.

But the LARGE missile requirement hadn't been touched and windows certified to the LARGE missile requirement didn't fail. They performed as tested and as required. Not so much for plywood and shutters btw.

At the basic level, any reasonable code has to meet three basic objectives: 1) is it practical, 2) is it affordable, 3) is it effective. If it meets those three requirements it is a good code. If it doesn't its a bad code.

You are clearly enamored with the Aussie code, but does it meet the three basic objectives?

Australia is divided into four different wind zones - A, B, C, D. Our deficient US impact code meets the requirements of zones A and B, and it used to meet C and D. But somewhere along the way the Aussie's forgot about the three objectives and mandated an unrealistic requirement for C and D. Not unrealistic because the "glass manufacturers" couldn't meet it, but because it misses on practical and affordable. It isn't just the glass, it's the frame, and the sash, and the hardware, and the wall. And btw, I didn't have to "research" the Aussie requirements, I knew them (not that I would claim to be an expert on them, I am not).

Feel free to look them up and correct me if I am wrong.

As I read thru your posts why am I getting a mental image of a printed-out power point presentation laminated in a three ring binder with lots of pics of failed windows and so on? Just saying that's my impression of your posts...but whatever.

And all modesty aside, Mr."expert", you are in my yard when you talk about this stuff and if you want to play on my playground bring your A-game next time.

Have a good day.

oberon476 for the win!

That's no way to treat an expert, Oberon.

thanks all, you are all great!!

Gee and I just finished popping the popcorn. Or as a well known person said to his opponent during a debate, "Please proceed. Please proceed governor"